Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

7 April 2025

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< April 06	April 08 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Al-'Ashr al-Awakher

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sources. No indication of notability. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:32, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Islam. UtherSRG (talk) 19:32, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What the article is describing is the Night of Power. Whether this is a legitimate name for it is another question. If it is, redirect, but I don't think it is, so delete. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:42, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - in its original state, the article contained three references, none of which mentioned Al-'Ashr al-Awakher at all. Since nomination at AfD, the creating editor has added a rough translation from the urwiki article, but I am not sure what to make of the references that are now there - they look like primary sources to me, but my knowledge of Islam is quite poor. In any case, although my WP:BEFORE searches turned up references to the last ten nights of Ramadan and that the Night of Power occurs within that period (so the topic is possibly notable), I could find nothing linking the phrase Al-'Ashr al-Awakher with it at all. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 09:22, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The first version of the article was incomplete, I've improved it now, so I think it should keep. Leo^talk 10:41, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per leo.Veritasphere (talk) 18:24, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems notable but sources can be improved. Mainly primary sources at the moment. Needs secondary sourcing. Ramos1990 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need more thorough, policy-based input, please.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 00:39, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Muroosystems

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Advert tone, cross-wiki spam. Aqurs1 (talk) 15:53, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and Japan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:12, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. I'm new to Wikipedia, not spam. Can you point out exactly what's wrong? I'll fix it. Cycm1122 (talk) 16:18, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look on WP:NOTPROMO, and article does not meet notability guildline. Aqurs1 (talk) 16:39, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the text and the links. Please check again, thanks! Cycm1122 (talk) 07:01, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not meets WP:N. Shwangtianyuan Working together for the better community 09:27, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please approve. Cycm1122 (talk) 03:33, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion – subject meets notability through multiple independent sources

The article satisfies WP:GNG through significant coverage by independent, reliable sources:

Economist.kg, Kabar, and Kazinform report on Muroosystems’ IT and energy projects in Central Asia, including government-level agreements and hydropower development;
Japan’s Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) lists Muroosystems as a funded participant in national trade digitalization programs;
Zukan.biz and Weekly BCN provide independent coverage of the company’s financials and platform strategy.

In 2024, Muroosystems acquired Nukem, a German nuclear engineering firm, in a transaction reported by World Nuclear News and other industry sources.

These clearly demonstrate real-world impact and lasting significance beyond routine announcements. The article meets notability and should be improved, not deleted. Cycm1122 (talk) 02:45, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions

Simply stating that the subject of an article is not notable does not provide reasoning as to why the subject may not be notable. This behavior straddles both "Just unencyclopedic" and "Just pointing at a policy or guideline". Cycm1122 (talk) 04:16, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:14, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Coverage is mostly about the Nukem acquisition that I find, which isn't quite enough to show notability. As it's a routine business transaction, we need article about the company, not on what the company bought. Oaktree b (talk) 04:21, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your specific feedback. I’ve already shared my reasons above for why I don’t think the article should be deleted. That said, I agree that more independent coverage would definitely help, and I’ll keep an eye out for new sources so I can continue improving the page.

With nuclear energy making a comeback globally, I’m also hoping to create and expand more articles on companies involved in this field. Cycm1122 (talk) 07:29, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Found several English sources and added them. Cycm1122 (talk) 11:56, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: notability is supported by multiple independent sources

I created this article and welcome improvements. While the Nukem acquisition is a notable part of the company's story, it's far from the only reason this subject is notable.

Muroosystems has been covered by independent sources across multiple domains — including trade digitalization projects backed by Japan’s METI, bilateral cooperation with governments in Central Asia (covered by 24.kg, Kabar, Kazinform), and business coverage from outlets like Weekly BCN and Zukan Biz.

These aren’t trivial mentions or routine press releases — they show consistent coverage and involvement in publicly funded initiatives and government-level infrastructure.

Happy to further improve the article’s structure if needed, but the subject clearly meets WP:GNG. – Cycm1122 (talk) 16:48, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sourcing is poor, topic not notable. Maybe better for Japanese wiki. Ramos1990 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 00:31, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shag Musa Medani

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined prod with reason "subject meets WP:NATH as a cross country national champion". I'm not sure if this relates to WP:NATH #4 "Have won their country's senior national championship, with the exception of those who have never been ranked in the top 60 on the IAAF world leading list at the end of a given calendar year". There isn't enough evidence that he is in the top 60 IAAF for cross country. All sources are databases and fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 23:21, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Sudan. LibStar (talk) 23:21, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I disagree with citing NATH in general in AfDs, but if you're going to bring it up, yes, subject clearly meets NATH prong 4 as an XC national champion and was in fact ranked 55th (top 60) in the world by the IAAF in cross country in 1977: [1].

What's always been more important was the general notability guideline, which can be met in a variety of ways including by WP:NEXIST. The case for NEXIST for this subject is strong, as the top Sudanese representative around the world in several disciplines over a multi-year period in the 1970s. I've looked and couldn't find prose-based coverage yet, but I would expect to find articles in physical Sudanese newspapers of the era, which could be accessible to us via a Wikipedian in Sudan. --Habst (talk) 12:58, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sudan at the 1972 Summer Olympics: Like the nom, I could not find any WP:SIGCOV for this BLP to meet the notability guidelines. WP:SPORTSBASIC requires at least one piece of significant coverage to be included in the article, which has never been the case here. We also can't assume who the local media would and would not have covered when determining whether to keep any WP:BLP. Redirect as a suitable WP:ATD, while also preserving the page history in the event better sourcing is found in the future. Let'srun (talk) 03:24, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The relevant guideline, which the article subject easily meets, is WP:SPORT, not WP:WEB, and just looking at the page shows more than enough WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS to meet WP:GNG. 190.219.103.171 (talk) 17:57, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All the supplied sources are databases. as per WP:SPORTBASIC "All sports biographies, including those of subjects meeting any criteria listed below, must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources." LibStar (talk) 23:28, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 00:27, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Austria Billie Jean King Cup team

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article appears to undergo regular edits with no WP:RS, Suggest merging content with Billie Jean King Cup which already contains details about the competitors. Variety312 (talk) 22:11, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Tennis, and Austria. Variety312 (talk) 22:11, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:13, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no deletion rationale presented above. Was a WP:BEFORE search performed? Also, the suggested merge target is completely inappropriate. Billie Jean King Cup is the article that contains all the high level information about the competition from its founding as the Federation Cup to the present day, and currently has 0 mention of this particular team (and also has 0 depth of any other team at the level this article goes in to). AfD isn't supposed to be used to propose bad merges or as a time pressured source finding/article improvement tool. Iffy★Chat -- 16:37, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a notable Billie Jean King Cup team so why on earth would we delete it? Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:14, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have found no sources indicating the Austria team for the Fed cup/Billie Jean King cup is or has been notable. There is routine coverage of their results from certain years, but I have not found anything else. Merely claiming it is a notable BJK team does not make it so, there needs to be sources to meet general notability.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 00:12, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, you asked for sources, here's some: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. Is that enough for you? Iffy★Chat -- 10:30, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

None of these sources seem to be more than coverage of the team's results or their hopes for the Fed Cup/BJK cup. In my opinion, these would fall under routine coverage as it's pretty common for teams/players to be interviewed before, during, and after tournaments. I don't think these sources establish notability per WP:NSPORT or WP:ROUTINE. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 22:41, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is what you're going to get for sports teams. If there's consistent year round coverage of their performance/team composition, that should go towards notability. I'd struggle to find many sources even for Austria national football team that wouldn't meet some definition of routine. Jevansen (talk) 23:02, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article has been here since 2007. Should have some sources by now showing wider coverage. Ramos1990 (talk) 21:11, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
More sources: [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] - The fact that the sources aren't currently in the article isn't a basis for deletion. It's an reason to improve the article. Iffy★Chat -- 21:57, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 00:27, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kids' Choice Award for Favorite Male TV Star

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article has been tagged since 2011. Although numerous edits have been made, none have added citations. Recommend merging with larger article on Nickelodeon Kids' Choice Awards Variety312 (talk) 21:06, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United States of America. Variety312 (talk) 21:06, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:45, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Feels like you could just easily add the source for each ceremony from each year's KCA article rather than just adding it to a vortex of deletions. Nathannah • 📮 19:41, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Seems like a directory but the awards are sort of notable and the link [17] in the mian page shows multiple similar summary pages exist for other award categories. Ramos1990 (talk) 00:46, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 00:25, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of animated films in the public domain in the United States

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, same as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films in the public domain in the United States. Absolutiva (talk) 00:19, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Lists. Absolutiva (talk) 00:19, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of films in the public domain in the United States

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Most American films are entered in the public domain from 2019 or later, but other non-US films, including Indian, Russian, Chinese, Japanese, etc. are also public domain. Absolutiva (talk) 00:18, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Lists. Absolutiva (talk) 00:18, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Albertto

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG. I can't find any coverage except for 1988 article in LA Times. Article is completely promotional and was created by banned user. —Kaliforniyka^Hi! 20:15, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. —Kaliforniyka^Hi! 20:15, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Panama. Shellwood (talk) 20:43, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. While most of the sources (both in the article and in a quick google search) are pretty low quality, I've found a couple that I think are usable for notability purposes. Mr Feel Good Academy of Fashion Arts and Sciences Ageist, and LA Style. He was also quoted in a 1994 issue of Cosmopolitan[18] but I am not sure if that article provided substantial coverage. His heyday as an agent appears to have been in pre- and early internet days so more sources may be available offline. Article should be trimmed and rewritten to avoid promotion and unsourced detail but I think there is some substance behind the glitz. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:01, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I'm not knowledgeable about fashion, but a quick online search shows a few different profiles that indicate notability as Eluchil404 listed. Article does need a significant rewrite to meet quality standards though.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 00:03, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not really encylopedic. Article here since 2016. With such poor sourcing after this time, it means not even editors seem to care about the subject. Ramos1990 (talk) 00:31, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I cannot find any source that can be suitable for this article, just promotional content and profiles 201.225.3.154 (talk) 03:35, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 00:18, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Heather (Glaive and Ericdoa song)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No reliable sources give significant coverage to the song. Doesn't meet WP:NSONG or WP:GNG. Skyshiftertalk 00:11, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]